IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.34114 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
MR. XAVIOUR MENDONSA S/O IGNATIOUS MENDONSA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PILLAR VILLAGE & POST, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-574 113.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADV. - ABSENT) AND 1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS SHASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. BEING THE STATE LEVEL COORDINATOR FOR PSU OIL INDUSTRY, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, P. KALINGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560027.
3. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., L.P.G REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, DEO GRATIAS, CHILIMBI-URWA, MANGALORE-575 006 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER 4. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., 17, DU PARC TRINITY, 7TH FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS ATTORNEY HOLDER, THE TERRITORY MANAGER.
5. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHOWRI H. R., CGSC FOR R1 SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA, ADV. FOR R2 SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, ADV. FOR R3 SRI. PRAKASH M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R4 SRI. Y. D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 06.11.2015 AT ANNEX-L ISSUED BY R-1 IN WHICH R-1 REJECT THE GRIEVANCE OF PETITIONER FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RGGLV SCHEME; PERMIT ALL EXISTING NORMAL DISTRIBUTORS TO MAKE GODOWN DELIVERY TO RURAL CUSTOMERS ON MRP ONLY WHEN THE GODOWN SITUATED IS OUTSIDE FREE DELIVERY LIMITS OF THE TOWN AS GIVEN BY RGGLV DISTRIBUTORS; DIRECT ALL THE RESPONDENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2009 FOR APPOINTING RGGLV DISTRIBUTORS IN PANCHAYAT LIMITS OUTSIDE 15 KMS FROM THE TOWN LIMITS WITH NO RIGHT TO MARKET COMMERCIAL CYLINDERS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R None for the petitioner. Sri. Showri H. R., learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, Sri. Gopalakrishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Sri. Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Sri. Prakash M. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, and Sri.
Y. D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.5.
2. Heard.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashing of endorsement dated 06.11.2015 issued by respondent No.1 by which the respondent No.1 has rejected the representation of the petitioner for enforcement of Rajiv Gandhi Gramina Liquid Project Gas Vitharak (hereinafter referred to as ‘RGGLV’ for short) scheme. The petitioner also seeks writ of mandamus directing all existing normal distributors to make godown delivery to rural customers on MRP only when the godown situated is outside free delivery limits of the town as given by RGGLV distributors, as well as to direct all the respondents to implement the order dated 06.08.2009 for appointing RGGLV distributors in panchayat limits outside 15 kms. from town limits with no right to market commercial cylinders.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that petitioner is consumer of LPG gas in Udupi town. It is averred in the writ petition that respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are Petroleum Distribution companies who are supposed to indicate proper market study and to take steps for appointing suitable distributors as per the need of the market/potential. It is also averred in the writ petition that the respondents 2, 3 and 4 have failed to make proper market survey and are damaging the requirements in the society by their advertisements for town like Udupi. It is also stated that the policy of permitting godown within 15 kms. from the town limits is without any rationale in relation to customer service. It is also submitted that in the year 2009, the government framed RGGLV Scheme. However, no efforts have been made by the respondents to address the genuine requirements of villagers. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted his representation which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 06.11.2015. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the reliefs as stated supra.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the process of appointing of RGGLV distributors is already complete and therefore nothing survives for adjudication in this petition. It is also urged that the representation submitted by the petitioner has been suitably considered and an opinion has been given to him in this regard, by communication dated 06.11.2015. It is also pointed out that the issues raised in the petition fall within the realm of policy decision which cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of power of judicial review.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the record.
7. The scope of judicial review with regard to interference with the policy matters, is well settled in law as stated in UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS – (2017) 2 SCC 599. This Court will not substitute its decision and interfere with the policy decision taken by an Authority, unless the same is shown to be either perverse or arbitrary. In the instant case, the request made by the petitioner for cancellation of selection of new distributors by advertisement dated 21.09.2013, has been rejected by assigning thorough reasons which reads as under:
(i) Advertisement for Regular distributorship at Udupi was placed by OMC on 21.09.2013 under “OBC”category for HPCL along with other locations. Udupi town is having 7 distributors (IOC=2, BPC=2 & HPC=3) with a total customer holding of 90,000. Raghvendra Acharya (HPC) with a customer holding of 23,000 (much above ceiling limit of 8800) was taken up for re-structuring hence one new agency was proposed for Udupi town.
(ii) The proposed Distributor was to be appointed as per the guidelines and restructuring of distributorships on exceeding the ceiling limit and it is a part of the process for ensuring enhanced customer satisfaction.
(iii) RGGLVY are small format LPG distributorship advertised separately and cannot be clubbed with the advertisement pertaining to Regular distributorship. Hence, locations proposed by the petitioners for RGGLVY can be considered by the OMCs, if found feasible, in subsequent advertisements.
(iv) Distributors are supposed to make home delivery irrespective of the distance although there is an additional charge of location beyond 5 kms. in line with the existing Govt.
notification. There is no scope for godown/cash & carry delivery unless there is a riot or natural calamity.
8. Thus, it is evident that valid and cogent reasons have been assigned by the respondents for rejecting the representation made by the petitioner with regard to appointment of new distributors. The aforesaid decision, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be either arbitrary or perverse. Therefore no case for interference with the impugned order in exercise of powers of judicial review is made out. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RD